Chairman Bob Bennett Email: bobbennettok@o2.co.uk Vice-Chairman Peter Yates Email: pyates@herefordshire.gov.uk www.planningofficers.org.uk Secretary [vacant] Email: MEETING OF POS DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE FRIDAY 17 TH JUNE 2011 AT THE COUNCIL HOUSE, COLLEGE GREEN, BRISTOL PRESENT Bob Bennett (Chair, DMC) Phil Kirby Crofton Briggs Peter Yates Mike Wilmott Andy Johnson Geoff Cross Philippa Lowe Ben Linscott Jeff Upton Basia Polnik Janet Busby Stephen Hill Paul Sneddon Gary Palmer POS Broadland District Council Oxford City Herefordshire Wiltshire South Staffordshire POS Enterprises Cotswold Planning Inspectorate Knowsley MBC Bracknell Forest Borough Council Swindon (for Richard Bell) ATLAS City of Lincoln Solihull APOLOGIES Karen Dower Susan Clark Paul Watson Gary Rhoades-Brown Andrew Tyrrell Steve Ingram Ian Whittaker Paul Clarke Dave Carter Marilyn Smith John Greenslade Tom Mitchell Carol Straughan Paula Hewitt Geoff Willerton David Noble Chichester Bexley Solihull Mole Valley District Colchester Huntingdonshire Norwich City Derby City Birmingham London Borough of Hounslow West Dorset Bury Stockton-on-Tees Somerset Calderdale Watford 1
Martin Vink Bob Duxbury Andrew Pritchard Steve Oxenham Tracy Harvey Rhiannon Williams Adrian Fisher Gillian McInnes Andy Roe Peter Geraghty Ashford Cherwell East Midlands North Norfolk Welhat Olympic Delivery Authority Cheshire East Local Govt Lake District National Park Southend 1. INTRODUCTION AND APOLOGIES 2. WELCOME Zoe Wilcox, Service Director for Planning & Sustainable Development at Bristol City Council, welcomed everyone to the meeting. Zoe outlined the ambitions for Bristol in terms of the proposal around Temple Meads for an Enterprise Zone, with a view to simplifying the planning process and encouraging employment growth. Zoe outlined that Bristol contains 33 conservation areas and over 4000 listed buildings and has previously been shortlisted for the European Green Capital Award, with green credentials carrying significant weight in the area particularly the issue of who feeds Bristol. Bristol s Core Strategy is due to be adopted and will create a sound policy basis for the City. 26,000 new homes are required/proposed and the strategy will seek to deliver growth and regeneration by working through the of neighbourhood planning network that has built up over the years (with Bristol now having 3 waves of projects in the localism Vanguard initiative). There was discussion amongst the group about the importance of LEP s in influencing planning policy and the potential benefits of LDO s. It was agreed that there was emerging good practice around LDO s and other planning tools to assist economic growth and it would be helpful in the future to examine good practice in more detail. 3. MINUTES FROM LAST MEETING There were no amendments to the minutes as circulated. 4. UPDATE ON PINS ACTIVITY BEN LINSCOTT, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PINS Ben outlined several key topics from PINS: 2
Restructuring is now underway, with PINS and the IPC integrating to form one management Board (with Commissioners to become Examiners). The restructure is required to save around 30% and this is proving challenging and is currently under negotiation, but Ministers are committed to the future of PINS as an organisation. PINS recently advertised for non-salaried inspectors, and whilst the response was not as high as anticipated they are currently shortlisting and appointing. Ministers have yet to make a decision on charging for appeals and are still seeking to understand the likely impact of any charges. The volume of S78 appeals is the same as last year, but with generally smaller proposals. The feeling is that there is significant pent up development and that any further slow down in the core strategy process could result in planning by appeal, which the Inspectorate do not want to see. Ben therefore urged all LPA s to proceed with their core strategies as a matter of urgency. The CALA decision makes it clear that the RSS is still a material consideration in the plan making process and any emerging core strategy policies should have regard to this fact. The Localism Bill will not revoke RSS s and their individual revocation will be subject to SEA s and it is unclear how this process will actually be undertaken in terms of who will actually carry an SEA out? CIL North Shropshire and Newark & Sherwood Councils both have examinations scheduled for July and it will be interesting for all to see how these play out and what level of objection they result in. Ben highlighted the issue that PINS are concerned that LPA s are not following the circular to the letter, particularly in light of the CIL regulations. LPA s can now only have regard to the 3 tests for 106 s and must ensure that any payments/clauses are directly related to the site. Even if agreement is reached with the developer over the clause, if it does not adhere to the tests then Inspectors will not find in its favour. PINS information system is to ultimately be developed as guidance and will be available through the web site. Ministers are now of the view that the Planning Guarantee (12 months to determine a planning application) is in place and PINS/CLG are considering its implications. There may be some guidance in due course, but it s not clear what the sanctions are if it s not complied with. Ben highlighted the Ashley Case, involving Taylor Wimpey. This application for 18 flats, contained an ill defined reason for refusal relating to impact on amenity. It was an appeal through written reps and a 3
challenge resulted from an interested party that additional evidence submitted through the process had not been adequately advertised. The LPA did not provide a formal response to the submitted evidence and therefore did not follow their duty of care to respond/rebut the submitted evidence. Whilst they would not necessarily have a requirement to advertise the information (although this is advisable), the duty is to at least respond. Under Section 319A of the 2008 Act, PINS can determine the type of appeal. This has not been challenged BUT barristers are increasingly turning up at hearings and PINS would prefer notice of this fact and will seek to continue with the appropriate atmosphere of a hearing. Ben confirmed that PINS are classing the Government budget statement on growth as a material consideration. 5. USE CLASSES ORDER Some concern was expressed by the group that whilst the points made were all valid, the drafted response could be viewed as overly negative. An additional point was raised that introducing permitted development into some areas of special protection may be illegal if introduced. Individual comments direct to John Walker were invited. 6. TRAVELLER SITES CONSULTATION Comments on gypsies and travellers in the Green Belt (specifically) invited directly to Peter. 7. LOCAL FEE SETTING It was confirmed that the fees regs have bow been drafted and should be issued this week, with enforcement commencing on 19 th July. If they are not issued within a week of the meeting, then it would almost certainly be after the summer recess. Either way, the national regs will continue until April 2013. 8. SOCIETY ISSUES None to report. 9. NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR AND SECRETARY OF THE COMMITTEE Stephen Hill (ATLAS) was formally nominated and accepted as Secretary. 4
10. AOB None. 11. DATE OF NEXT MEETING 23rd September - Leeds 5